International comparisons of health-system performance still rely heavily on administrative and clinical data, which say little about how patients experience healthcare or whether care improves people’s day-to-day health. This report describes what happens when countries add patient-reported information to that picture and use it to support policymaking processes. The report focusses on the Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS), an OECD programme designed to assess primary care from people’s perspective, and to support improvements in quality and in how people‑centred health services are. The first cycle of PaRIS, which ran between 2018 and 2025, surveyed over 107 000 patients using primary care services and more than 1 800 primary care practices in 19 countries, and provides a large, internationally comparable dataset that countries can use to benchmark performance, identify gaps, and track reforms using measures reported directly by primary care users.
Drawing on interviews and written exchanges with country delegates and national project managers of PaRIS in March 2026, this report identifies how PaRIS results have been disseminated, interpreted and used in health policy and practice in the 19 countries that participated in PaRIS Cycle 1 (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechia, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, the United States and Wales (United Kingdom)). The analysis follows a Knowledge to Action framework, a structured way to examine how evidence is adapted to the local context, communicated, applied, monitored and sustained. The outcomes focussed on dissemination of PaRIS results at the national level, policy and practice use of PaRIS results, mechanisms supporting dissemination and use for health policy, and the long-term impact of PaRIS.
Results from Cycle 1 of PaRIS were widely disseminated at the national level. Many countries published national reports or summary outputs, often structured around the PaRIS‑10 indicators, and organised policy dialogues, stakeholder meetings or targeted briefings. For example, Australia, Belgium, Czechia, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland produced national level reports, and Belgium, Czechia, Italy, Romania and Slovenia held dedicated national events involving decision makers, primary care professionals and patient organisations. These activities were frequently complemented by infographics, webinars and websites as seen in Australia, Luxembourg, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Wales, to support interpretation and facilitate dissemination.
PaRIS findings are informing policy discussions and reform processes. Seven countries, including Czechia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Wales, reported using PaRIS to identify gaps in primary care, particularly in care co‑ordination and digital health. Belgium, Greece, Norway and Portugal reported using PaRIS to confirm previously identified healthcare challenges from the patient perspective. Czechia, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Wales reported using PaRIS as an evidence base for ongoing reform.
PaRIS has also contributed to long-term impact and sustainability by facilitating the integration of key patient‑reported measures into national frameworks for healthcare system assessment and quality monitoring. Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Wales reported embedding or planning to embed PaRIS indicators into national healthcare performance measurement and quality monitoring systems. Other examples include embedding into accreditation programmes such as in Portugal.
Overall, PaRIS Cycle 1 highlights both the feasibility of collecting patient‑reported outcomes and experiences on an international scale and the conditions under which such data can be effectively translated into policy and practice. The experience of the participating countries shows that early stakeholder engagement, clear governance arrangements, adequate analytical and dissemination capacity, and alignment with national priorities are critical to turning patient‑reported evidence into actionable insights. At the same time, resource constraints, limited familiarity with PROMs and PREMs, and competing policy pressures can hamper uptake.
The lessons from Cycle 1 point to practical actions that countries can adapt to their context to strengthen the sustainable use of patient‑reported measures. The findings from this report highlight several short- and medium- term recommendations for countries to strengthen the uptake of PaRIS at the national level:
Convene a stakeholder group from early stages: Relevant stakeholders should be mobilised to discuss the study design in the national context, support recruitment and data collection, disseminate results, interpret findings, and develop policy priorities. Such a stakeholder group should include patients, healthcare professionals and other key stakeholders in the national context.
Plan the communication and dissemination strategy ahead of time: Such a strategy should be developed with the stakeholder group and included as a budget line during project planning. The strategy should also consider the team composition and the relevant resources needed to realise the strategy, for example a communication officer, graphic designer or behavioural scientist.
Ensure close collaboration between policymakers and project team: Establishing a steering committee that includes key actors in the implementation and use of results can strengthen impact. Such a committee should include the Ministry of Health, the national project manager (if not sitting at the ministry) as well as key national authorities and providers.
Increase knowledge on PROMs and PREMs among patients, healthcare professionals and policymakers: Learning sessions should be planned to increase awareness, knowledge and learning capacity among key stakeholders including patients, healthcare professionals and policymakers. Invite key experts on the topic for the learning session to share high-level information as well as concrete examples of how to collect, communicate and use PROMs and PREMs.
The findings also point to several recommendations whose implementation will depend on continued, long‑term investment and effort:
Commit to systematically assessing PROMs and PREMs at the national level: A national plan should prioritise the collection and use of patient-reported measures to assess the performance and quality of healthcare system. Maximise cross-country learning opportunities across PaRIS cycles through targeted collaborations.
Invest in sustained systems (institutionalise) to systematically collect PROMs and PREMs data: Interoperability in data systems should be achieved to link data across databases to improve interpretability of the findings in the broader national context. Prepare legal frameworks, where needed, for governance and sustainability.